| Author |
Message |
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
 Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:22 am |
|
We'll wait and see what Gravity Probe B says . . .
Gravity Probe B> Please hold, I'm on a coffee break . . . on my NASA time. MUWAHAHAHAHAHA!
What is literal though? If everything is a matter of perception, and therefore dependent upon two observers relative to each other, then we need some sort of theory that governs this law of relativity . . . since as long as we remain able to interact with the universe, all the objective laws in the universe won't do us any good, since humans aren't objective.
|
|
|
~Voyager Fan~
Captain's Assistant
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 83
Location: On board voyager assisting the captain
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:23 am |
|
| lionhead wrote: |
For the abolute last time people; Going faster than the speed of light has got nothing too do with Time. Time does NOT have a speed! |
Yup, in therory time has NO speed. 
-------signature-------
Starfleet Command-
"You're not alone...."
Message in a Bottle
|
|
|
EnsignParis
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Sep 2001
Posts: 257
|
| Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:14 pm |
|
| lionhead wrote: | | Its pure logic. i don't need too experiment it. i just know einsteins theory can't be right. |
Galileo must be wrong as well...I mean, the planets don't move around the sun or anything. Everyone knows the sun revolves around us. Geez 
Why don't you try and prove me wrong rather than saying "I just know that his theory can't be right"
How old are you? This board seems to be filled with incompetent 11 year olds who post *beep*, don't read responses, misspell words or phrases like 'warp speed" and 'graviton' and say things are "pure logic" when they mean they have a hunch.
Well, I have news for you. Logic is based on existing facts or experiments to predict something or to give reasoning for something. A hunch is something in your gut. Now, if this is "pure logic" as you say, please, I beg you, share your logic with me...because thus far, you have done no such thing.
|
|
|
Captain Leah Manzer
Vice Admiral
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 5221
Location: State of Insanity
|
| Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:19 pm |
|
| ~Voyager Fan~ wrote: | | lionhead wrote: |
For the abolute last time people; Going faster than the speed of light has got nothing too do with Time. Time does NOT have a speed! |
Yup, in therory time has NO speed. |
well it can't because to have speed, you would need time... Time cannot be a compontent of it's self..
|
|
|
Kylon
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 03 Jun 2002
Posts: 292
Location: In a distant galaxy far far away...
|
| Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:59 pm |
|
To end your bickering, look up SUPERLUMINAL tunneling. Its a widely repeatable experiment.
Yes, faster than light travel is possible, and back in time too.
-------signature-------
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:34 am |
|
| Kylon wrote: | To end your bickering, look up SUPERLUMINAL tunneling. Its a widely repeatable experiment.
Yes, faster than light travel is possible, and back in time too. |
but they have nothing too do with eachother.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Captain Digness
Commander
Joined: 04 Dec 2003
Posts: 418
|
| Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:15 pm |
|
lionhead, your posts are pure genious(i think I spelled that right). I too agree that einstiens laws are a flaw. The whole time dialation thing is completely wack. If you do not maind may I please use your info for a science fair project I am doing? I also agree that you need not experiment with einstiens laws, you can tell by just reading them that they are wrong.
-------signature-------
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:01 pm |
|
| Captain Digness wrote: | | lionhead, your posts are pure genious(i think I spelled that right). I too agree that einstiens laws are a flaw. The whole time dialation thing is completely wack. If you do not maind may I please use your info for a science fair project I am doing? I also agree that you need not experiment with einstiens laws, you can tell by just reading them that they are wrong. |
Thank you, a least someone here aprreciates clear thinking.(by the way, i PM you)
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Captain Digness
Commander
Joined: 04 Dec 2003
Posts: 418
|
| Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:41 pm |
|
| lionhead wrote: | Oh no, not that again.
For the abolute last time people; Going faster than the speed of light has got nothing too do with Time. Time does NOT have a speed! |
I see what you mean. Correct me if I am wrong, but time is not like a movie. You can not just click fast forward or rewind. Time has no speed if it is 12 oclock pm now percicely 24 hours later it will be 12 pm asweel you can not speed that up or slow it down, no matter how fast you are traveling.
I have an example. If you are going to Toronto from new york at 100kph an hour it will take lets say 5 hours(I just made that number up). However if you travel at 200kph it will take you less time. Time does not speed up for you and slow down for someone wlking to the same area, you just speed yourself up, causing you to move faster, NOT TIME. Time is completly irrelevant. (Ihope that that made sense.)
-------signature-------
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:49 pm |
|
| Captain Digness wrote: |
I have an example. If you are going to Toronto from new york at 100kph an hour it will take lets say 5 hours(I just made that number up). However if you travel at 200kph it will take you less time. Time does not speed up for you and slow down for someone wlking to the same area, you just speed yourself up, causing you to move faster, NOT TIME. Time is completly irrelevant. (Ihope that that made sense.) |
Yes, that made sense
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Captain Digness
Commander
Joined: 04 Dec 2003
Posts: 418
|
| Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:45 pm |
|
| EnsignParis wrote: | | lionhead wrote: | | Its pure logic. i don't need too experiment it. i just know einsteins theory can't be right. |
Galileo must be wrong as well...I mean, the planets don't move around the sun or anything. Everyone knows the sun revolves around us. Geez
Why don't you try and prove me wrong rather than saying "I just know that his theory can't be right"
How old are you? This board seems to be filled with incompetent 11 year olds who post *beep*, don't read responses, misspell words or phrases like 'warp speed" and 'graviton' and say things are "pure logic" when they mean they have a hunch.
Well, I have news for you. Logic is based on existing facts or experiments to predict something or to give reasoning for something. A hunch is something in your gut. Now, if this is "pure logic" as you say, please, I beg you, share your logic with me...because thus far, you have done no such thing. |
you are right that there are alot of 11 year olds on this site that do not know how to spell. that does not mean that they can not convey ideas. also how old are you? tom pairis is not an ensign as your username says he is lieutenant. hehehehe
-------signature-------
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
|
|
|
Captain Digness
Commander
Joined: 04 Dec 2003
Posts: 418
|
| Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:42 pm |
|
I have a question. How would you get around what Einstien said about the infinite energy expeniture?
-------signature-------
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:33 pm |
|
Excellent question.
Relativity says that a particle (like an electron) has two masses: a rest mass (particle with no velocity), and an inertial mass (due to its velocity).
Take an electron accelerated to near C and smash it into a target mass. The energy released is proportional to its total (rest plus inertial) mass. This has been shown. Likewise, as the electron approaches C, the forces trying to make it go faster must react to its total mass.
Even though relativity says there is no difference between an object being propelled by outside forces and one propelling iteslf, that experiment has never been performed.
Unfortunately, the only way to test it (with foreseable technology) would be to use a rocket with an exhaust velocity near C, such as a fusion engine.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:05 am |
|
| Quote: | | Unfortunately, the only way to test it (with foreseable technology) would be to use a rocket with an exhaust velocity near C, such as a fusion engine. |
Which will prove that a Particle does not have 2 masses but just one. Velocity does not change the Mass in any way. I can't even imagine that that would happen, its like bending reality.
but i have too look into it more deeply first.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:19 pm |
|
| lionhead wrote: | | Quote: | | Unfortunately, the only way to test it (with foreseable technology) would be to use a rocket with an exhaust velocity near C, such as a fusion engine. |
Which will prove that a Particle does not have 2 masses but just one. Velocity does not change the Mass in any way. I can't even imagine that that would happen, its like bending reality.
but i have too look into it more deeply first. |
Dude, if relativity seems weird to you, you better not go anywhere near quantum mechanics.
Here's a loop to follow. Mass is a measure of an object's inertia. Inertia is the property of matter that requires energy to change its velocity. As an object approaches C, it requires more energy per unit increase in velocity, which is another way of saying its inertia increases, hence its mass increases.
Then there's the photon, which has a rest mass so small as to be considered zero. Yet moving photons have enough energy to alter the orbits of electrons. The energy required is magnitudes more than its rest mass times .5V^2. The extra energy is due to its velocity (very very very close to C).
I understand if this counters your normal perception of the universe, but it has been shown countless times in linear accelerators, going back over 75 years.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:44 am |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | lionhead wrote: | | Quote: | | Unfortunately, the only way to test it (with foreseable technology) would be to use a rocket with an exhaust velocity near C, such as a fusion engine. |
Which will prove that a Particle does not have 2 masses but just one. Velocity does not change the Mass in any way. I can't even imagine that that would happen, its like bending reality.
but i have too look into it more deeply first. |
Dude, if relativity seems weird to you, you better not go anywhere near quantum mechanics.
Here's a loop to follow. Mass is a measure of an object's inertia. Inertia is the property of matter that requires energy to change its velocity. As an object approaches C, it requires more energy per unit increase in velocity, which is another way of saying its inertia increases, hence its mass increases.
Then there's the photon, which has a rest mass so small as to be considered zero. Yet moving photons have enough energy to alter the orbits of electrons. The energy required is magnitudes more than its rest mass times .5V^2. The extra energy is due to its velocity (very very very close to C).
I understand if this counters your normal perception of the universe, but it has been shown countless times in linear accelerators, going back over 75 years. |
Well first of all, i believe that for an object too exist it MUST have a mass, so a photon has a mass too. I mean, just because we can't measure it doesn't mean its not there.
you all show that The fact is:
Too increase the velocity of an object you need more energy, the amount is determined my the objects mass. Simple logic. When it aproaches C(whatever that is) doesn't change the mass, but increases the amount of energy required you say. Thats it, it just multiplies the energy drain but it has nothing too do with its mass. An photon needs just as much more energy as a Spaceship as it reaches C.
Pfff, i hope i'm making sense now. Don't get angry if you don't understand some of it.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:14 am |
|
You almost got it.
The amount of energy required to increase the object's velocity = the object's inertia = the object's mass.
And a photon does appear to have mass, it's just very very very very small. In fact, the "mass" of photons was one of the things which led to relativity.
{from a physics web site}
Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass?
If the rest mass of the photon was non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalizable; also, charge-conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have vanishing rest-mass. However, whatever theory says, it is still necessary to check theory against experiment.
It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment which would establish that the photon rest mass is exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would lead to a change in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. There would be a small damping factor making it weaker over very large distances.
The behavior of static magnetic fields is likewise modified. A limit on the photon mass can be obtained through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive a limit of 6x10-16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laborartory experiment which looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7x10-17 eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3x10-27 eV but there is some doubt about the validity of this method.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:28 am |
|
| lionhead wrote: | | Well first of all, i believe that for an object too exist it MUST have a mass, so a photon has a mass too. I mean, just because we can't measure it doesn't mean its not there. |
Then you won't like tachyons . . . they need imaginary mass. And who is to say that anything exists, eh? 
Photons have a rest mass of zero. This is their mass when they are not moving. By definition, photons are in constant motion, so their mass increases with their speed.
Following that line of thinking . . . if it were possible to stop a photon, would the photon therefore cease to exist?
|
|
|
Captain Digness
Commander
Joined: 04 Dec 2003
Posts: 418
|
| Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:06 pm |
|
An intersting point of getting around the infinite energy expenditure is brought out in the star trek tech manual where it says: "The vessel remains at light speed for no longer than a plank time of 1.3 x 10^-43, the smallest possible unit of measurable time."
-------signature-------
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:47 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | Then you won't like tachyons . . . they need imaginary mass. And who is to say that anything exists, eh?
Photons have a rest mass of zero. This is their mass when they are not moving. By definition, photons are in constant motion, so their mass increases with their speed.
Following that line of thinking . . . if it were possible to stop a photon, would the photon therefore cease to exist? |
Just as particles can (assimtotically) approach C but never actually reach it, a photon can assimtotically approach 0 velocity. There is a definable limit of the maximum possible "rest mass" as a photon approaches {we need a term that is like the opposite of C, zero speed}.
Also, a photon is energy, and energy and mass are interchangable. I know, it seems paradoxical, but welcome to the strange world of QM.
How much mass does a wave have?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:18 am |
|
everything is energy. A photon might be the purest form of it.
| Quote: | Photons have a rest mass of zero. This is their mass when they are not moving. By definition, photons are in constant motion, so their mass increases with their speed.
Following that line of thinking . . . if it were possible to stop a photon, would the photon therefore cease to exist? |
If your moving or not, you have a constant mass. I mean, if i start walking would my mass increase? No, just like earth when we start moving we create gravity on our bodies. But what that would mean i do not know exactly.
Of course a photon would get the same thing and the gravitational pull of the photon when its moving is the Mass everybody thinks it has. Logically THAT "mass" would disappear if it stopped moving.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Five - seveN
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 3567
Location: Shadow Moon
|
| Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:45 pm |
|
Well, k. Lionhead, why do you not believe these things that go above your perception? I mean, you just continue to say "I think that is impossible" and bla bla bla, but you'll just have to accept certain things as true. I don't really understand why a moving thing has more mass either, but appearantly, at least some of it is true, so I'll accept it...
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Wed Feb 23, 2005 5:36 pm |
|
| Five - seveN wrote: | Well, k. Lionhead, why do you not believe these things that go above your perception? I mean, you just continue to say "I think that is impossible" and bla bla bla, but you'll just have to accept certain things as true. I don't really understand why a moving thing has more mass either, but appearantly, at least some of it is true, so I'll accept it...
|
Impossible is impossible in my head. Once something is impossible i don't accept it. I can't, i need an explanation. There are a lot more things going on around in my head then what i write down.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Five - seveN
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 3567
Location: Shadow Moon
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:52 pm |
|
I understand, kinda... But whatever. Never mind. 
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
